creationists (please be respectful), can i ask you a question?

Question

How many Americans are ready to accept the proposition
that science has made a colossal error interpreting
the fossil and geological record and - more radical
still - that the validity of Christianity depends on
proving it? If anything, a stance like this repels
those wavering between faith and disbelief and gives
skeptics one more reason to reject religion.

A suggestion to creationists: Let science be science,
and let religion prevail in the vast areas where
science has little or nothing to offer. It's not as
though science has an answer for everything of
consequence. The purpose and meaning of life, the
existence of good and evil and love and hate, the
nature of a human soul and what becomes of it at
death, the existence and will of the divine - these
are questions that belong to ethics, philosophy and,
of course, religion.

No, religion shouldn't be picking this particular
fight with mainstream science. Can't the Bible
literalists concede matters of empirical evidence and
rational inquiry to science and devote themselves to
the questions of ultimate meaning - the mighty
questions that rightly occupy religion? Their religion
doesn't need any scientific proof. Why should their
own faith?

Answer 1

I have to agree.

It seems to me to be the *worst* strategy to take the position that evolution is anti-God ... i.e. that "evidence for evolution is evidence against God." As the evidence for evolution continues to mount with every new discovery, as it has for the last 150 years ... what do you expect to happen?

But what really bothers me about creationism, is that it requires believers to embrace a complete and utter *mistrust* of scientists as a community. I don't just mean a handful of them ... individual scientists are human ... but the entire community. And not just evolutionary biologists, but geneticists and molecular biologists, paleontologists, anatomists, anthropologists, chemists and physicists (for their theories about radioactivity that are the basis for dating fossils), astrophysicists (for their measurements of distant galaxies showing them to be billions of light-years away), etc. etc. The true hard-core creationist has to believe that tens of thousands of scientists have gotten together to perpetrate a hoax for no apparent reason or profit whatsoever.

It is this mistrust of scientists that also leads to mistrusting research on everything from whether smoking is bad for you, to whether vaccines cause autism, to whether global warming is occurring. These people turn to politicians and religious leaders over scientists *on matters of science*. This is why Americans are unbelievably vulnerable by direct manipulation by those very same politicians and religious leaders ... they have not ability whatsoever to evaluate evidence or the people who are providing it.

Answer 2

Nice thought, but I don't think it's going to happen. The answers given already should show that.

A perfect example of the intractibility of the literalist interpretation of the bible is in the claims of Kent Hovind. All his claims have been easily and rapidly debunked and yet he has not backed off on a single one or admitted a single error. It's sad really.

In fact, every single argument listed here has been addressed before in the talkorigins archive.

Answer 3

The Bible does not contradict that the Earth is old.
According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible’s creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.—2 Peter 3:8.

But of course, the theory of evolution still has not been scientifically proven. Therefore, it can not disprove the fact that God created man as stated in the bible. (Genesis 1:27,28; 2:7, 21, 22)

An honest study of the bible will show that true bible teachings and true religion is based on solid evidence. And so is our faith! The bible defines faith this way, “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) So genuine faith is not mere gullibility. It is based on solid evidence, on reasonable assurance.

Answer 4

With all do respect, this would be great if scientists (or anyone for that matter) could PROVE anything. Like religion, science is something that we are forced to belive by faith because no one was there in the beginning to see how it all happened, and no one can PROVE that the laws of science will ever be consistant (i.e. we can't even prove that gravity will exist tommorow, even though there's a very high probablity that it will). Yes, scientists are smart, and they have studied the world around us, but any good scientist will tell you that they can't PROVE anything. There IS no standard of truth in science. It's all probabilty and faith.

So, you have your faith and we have ours.

Answer 5

What do you imply by way of "Attack"? All technology comprises uncertainty. All medical principles stay area to logical and medical scrutiny. The medical process makes no provision for any inspiration being past medical query. Who will get to investigate what constitutes a "respectful, scientifically authorized reply". Scientific trust is derived via the right software of the medical process. There isn't any provision within the medical process for trust to be derived from both admire or consensus. "Irrational" does now not imply disagrees with consensus. Rational way adhering to the foundations of good judgment. Irrational way breaking the foundations of good judgment. If the belief is logically regular with the argument, proof and premise, then the argument is rational - without reference to whether or not or now not the argument consents with medical consensus.

Answer 6

Christainty has nothing to prove.

Those who attempt to prove Christianty through some scientific means, are those as the Apostle Paul says; "for all men have not faith.

Answer 7

The scientific field applies heavy pressure to anyone who does not go along with the accepted views of evolution and such even though quitea few scientists have evidence to the contrary.

i have more respect for people who believe that aliens started everything than evolution folks as the evidence involves more faith (to fill in some huge gaps like rotating thumbs, vocal chords, no evidence of macro evolution just micro evolution that only involves loss of informatin not a gain etc.) than that of people who believe in God.

There is far more logic in the idea of complexity being accomplished by higher intelligence than for complexity to be accomplished by time and nothing. (time couldn't even exist in nothing without light)

This is like assuming that putting steel, plastic, and glass, in a cement mixer and letting it mix them for several thousand years would produce a fully functional Rolls Royce.

Occom's Razor - look it up

Answer 8

I think the problem is that some people refuse to acknowledge that science cannot explain how life originated or why a brain would have evolved; bacteria do quite well without one.
I do not knock science, but I am aware of some of the limitations of science.

Answer 9

That was a very logical idea and you spoke eloquently in presenting it.

I can tell you, they will not go for it. Anyone who actually believes Genesis happened, is not capable of logic. Sorry, but it is true.

I told you so. See Esther, God bless her. Drama Queen, God bless her too, is even more deluded.

Answer 10

Really, there is no "fight to pick" between Creationists and science. It's amazing how well TRUE science and Creationism fit together! Do some serious research and you'll see that science is another supporting factor of Christianity.